6 ms·

Re. "quality of life problems", how about not being able to afford to live in SF? Does that qualify? If you don't like density or problems that arise due to den

Re. "quality of life problems", how about not being able to afford to live in SF? Does that qualify? If you don't like density or problems that arise due to density, don't live in dense places. There are plenty of less dense places. Here's a radical idea: build tall buildings. Tokyo sits on a fault. They manage to build tall buildings.

zepto 11y ago
Yes - tall buildings are why Tokyo is so affordable. /s
- patio11 11y ago
  Tall buildings [+] are why Tokyo is so affordable. I live in the 2nd hottest neighborhood in the city. You can rent an apartment within 4 blocks of me, tomorrow, for $800 a month, and you'd have many choices. If you were willing to live further out or in a less prestigious neighborhood you could trade up on size, too. [+] Tokyo is very much not monolithically tall buildings. I live in a 45 story highrise; less than 25 meters away there exists single-family housing and 3 story apartments. The average density is pretty high, though -- here in Meguro it is about 2.5x SF's citywide (50k people per square mile vs 20k).
  - Johnny555 11y ago
    Effective transit is what makes tall buildings in Tokyo work. SF would need to invest tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in transit in order to make Tokyo style densities work. Just digging out the sides of Embarcadero station to allow two-sided boarding for BART is projected to cost a billion dollars.
    - crzwdjk 11y ago
      If people who work in SF could also live in SF, wouldn't that reduce the demand for taking BART across the bay? Yes, that's oversimplifying things a bit, but the principle seems sound.
    - rmc 11y ago
      It's a chicken and the egg problem. If the population is denser, than public transport systems like light rail, become cheaper and more effective. If the amount of people within 1km (i.e. walkable distance) of a light rail system doubles, then people are closer to a train station and it's potential customer base has increased.
  - zepto 11y ago
    How many square feet does that $800 per month get you?
trhway 11y ago
>If you don't like density or problems that arise due to density, don't live in dense places. corollary of your position - don't approve density increase where you live if you don't like density :)
HillaryBriss 11y ago
Not being able to afford to live in SF is a problem for people who aren't already comfortably settled there. Under the current political system, it takes just a handful of the "comfortably settled" to lever potential quality of life problems and create a giant obstruction to pro-growth policies. This is how it goes in other parts of California too.
- jld 11y ago
  It seems many have an inherent expectation that a neighborhood will not change after they choose to buy into it. The nature of cities is that they are constantly changing, and the sooner we can teach people this, the better.
- Johnny555 11y ago
  Isn't that how it's supposed to work? People that live in a community have the most weight in deciding policies for that community? If employers stop coming to SF because of the lack of affordable housing, then maybe the community will change their minds. Or maybe that's exactly what they wanted.
  - HillaryBriss 11y ago
    If I were to base my answer to that on what I've been hearing over the last decade from discussions about immigration, free trade, globalization, etc I'd say something like "No, how it's supposed to work is that every region must remain open to growth at all costs and from all sources, especially outside sources. And if there's a policy such as a zoning policy or a density goal that stands in the way of outsiders entering a region to settle there and grow the economy, then that policy is discriminatory and ought to be removed. This applies just as much to San Francisco as it does to Arizona. Blah blah blah." But seriously now, where do we draw this line? I have no idea anymore. The debate has gone in every direction and twisted itself into so many knots I have no idea when a local government should have control over this and when it shouldn't.
Johnny555 11y ago
Not being able to afford to live in SF is not a quality of life problem. If you can't afford it, don't live there. There are lots of places in the world that I can't afford to live in, but that doesn't really affect my quality of life. The argument that many residents have against urbanization of SF by removing building height limits is that an urbanized SF is no longer "SF". Skyscrapers built on pilings down to bedrock are almost certainly more safer in an earthquake than most of the old low rise housing in SF, so earthquake safety is not the reason SF isn't full of high rises.
- davidw 11y ago
  > Not being able to afford to live in SF is not a quality of life problem. I would point out that article showing that the poor live longer in places like SF and NY. For others, access to a more productive, dynamic place to work carries a lot of benefits, and excluding them definitely hurts.
  - Johnny555 11y ago
    If you're going to point out an article, you should actually point it out :) Do you mean this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/11/where-living-poor-means-dying-young/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/11/where... Where the map shows that areas up and down the California Coast (not just SF) show longer life for the poor? However, I'm not sure that longer life correlates strongly with "quality of life" (as someone who watched a loved one undergo long slow decline and live about a year longer than he wanted to). A homeless person that barely manages to eke out a living on the streets of SF may not be happier than a homeless person in Detroit that largely lives in shelters in Detroit, even if the SF homeless person lives longer.
rco8786 11y ago
> If you don't like density or problems that arise due to density, don't live in dense places. There are plenty of less dense places. If you don't like expensive housing or problems that arise due to expensive housing, don't living in expensive places. There are plenty of less expensive places. Note: I agree with density == good(in general) but you're using the same argument that the nimbys are using in SF.
aetherson 11y ago
Tokyo metropolis density: 6,200/km^2 San Francisco density: 7,100/km^2 Per wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco

zepto 11y ago

Yes - tall buildings are why Tokyo is so affordable. /s

patio11 11y ago
Tall buildings [+] are why Tokyo is so affordable. I live in the 2nd hottest neighborhood in the city. You can rent an apartment within 4 blocks of me, tomorrow, for $800 a month, and you'd have many choices. If you were willing to live further out or in a less prestigious neighborhood you could trade up on size, too. [+] Tokyo is very much not monolithically tall buildings. I live in a 45 story highrise; less than 25 meters away there exists single-family housing and 3 story apartments. The average density is pretty high, though -- here in Meguro it is about 2.5x SF's citywide (50k people per square mile vs 20k).
- Johnny555 11y ago
  Effective transit is what makes tall buildings in Tokyo work. SF would need to invest tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in transit in order to make Tokyo style densities work. Just digging out the sides of Embarcadero station to allow two-sided boarding for BART is projected to cost a billion dollars.
  - crzwdjk 11y ago
    If people who work in SF could also live in SF, wouldn't that reduce the demand for taking BART across the bay? Yes, that's oversimplifying things a bit, but the principle seems sound.
  - rmc 11y ago
    It's a chicken and the egg problem. If the population is denser, than public transport systems like light rail, become cheaper and more effective. If the amount of people within 1km (i.e. walkable distance) of a light rail system doubles, then people are closer to a train station and it's potential customer base has increased.
- zepto 11y ago
  How many square feet does that $800 per month get you?

trhway 11y ago

>If you don't like density or problems that arise due to density, don't live in dense places. corollary of your position - don't approve density increase where you live if you don't like density :)

HillaryBriss 11y ago

Not being able to afford to live in SF is a problem for people who aren't already comfortably settled there. Under the current political system, it takes just a handful of the "comfortably settled" to lever potential quality of life problems and create a giant obstruction to pro-growth policies. This is how it goes in other parts of California too.

jld 11y ago
It seems many have an inherent expectation that a neighborhood will not change after they choose to buy into it. The nature of cities is that they are constantly changing, and the sooner we can teach people this, the better.
Johnny555 11y ago
Isn't that how it's supposed to work? People that live in a community have the most weight in deciding policies for that community? If employers stop coming to SF because of the lack of affordable housing, then maybe the community will change their minds. Or maybe that's exactly what they wanted.
- HillaryBriss 11y ago
  If I were to base my answer to that on what I've been hearing over the last decade from discussions about immigration, free trade, globalization, etc I'd say something like "No, how it's supposed to work is that every region must remain open to growth at all costs and from all sources, especially outside sources. And if there's a policy such as a zoning policy or a density goal that stands in the way of outsiders entering a region to settle there and grow the economy, then that policy is discriminatory and ought to be removed. This applies just as much to San Francisco as it does to Arizona. Blah blah blah." But seriously now, where do we draw this line? I have no idea anymore. The debate has gone in every direction and twisted itself into so many knots I have no idea when a local government should have control over this and when it shouldn't.

Johnny555 11y ago

Not being able to afford to live in SF is not a quality of life problem. If you can't afford it, don't live there. There are lots of places in the world that I can't afford to live in, but that doesn't really affect my quality of life. The argument that many residents have against urbanization of SF by removing building height limits is that an urbanized SF is no longer "SF". Skyscrapers built on pilings down to bedrock are almost certainly more safer in an earthquake than most of the old low rise housing in SF, so earthquake safety is not the reason SF isn't full of high rises.

davidw 11y ago
> Not being able to afford to live in SF is not a quality of life problem. I would point out that article showing that the poor live longer in places like SF and NY. For others, access to a more productive, dynamic place to work carries a lot of benefits, and excluding them definitely hurts.
- Johnny555 11y ago
  If you're going to point out an article, you should actually point it out :) Do you mean this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/11/where-living-poor-means-dying-young/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/11/where... Where the map shows that areas up and down the California Coast (not just SF) show longer life for the poor? However, I'm not sure that longer life correlates strongly with "quality of life" (as someone who watched a loved one undergo long slow decline and live about a year longer than he wanted to). A homeless person that barely manages to eke out a living on the streets of SF may not be happier than a homeless person in Detroit that largely lives in shelters in Detroit, even if the SF homeless person lives longer.

rco8786 11y ago

> If you don't like density or problems that arise due to density, don't live in dense places. There are plenty of less dense places. If you don't like expensive housing or problems that arise due to expensive housing, don't living in expensive places. There are plenty of less expensive places. Note: I agree with density == good(in general) but you're using the same argument that the nimbys are using in SF.

aetherson 11y ago

Tokyo metropolis density: 6,200/km^2 San Francisco density: 7,100/km^2 Per wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco